Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

III post, there is a policy of reservation and not beyond that. Both the petitioners had since been promoted as Superintendent on 3.4.1991 and 8.7.1991 respectively.

3. It is asserted that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Vir Pal Singh Chauhan, 1995(6) SCC 684 : 1995(4)SCT 695 (SC), followed by subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh-II v. State of Punjab, 1999(7) SCC 209 : 1999(4) SCT I (SC) and Sube Singh Bahmani v. State of Haryana, 1999(8) SCC 213 : 1999(4) SCT 328 (SC), the respondent State had drawn the seniority list. According to the petitioners, they are senior to all the respondents except respondents No. 2 to 10 who have become senior by virtue of catch up rule. The seniority list otherwise so prepared is stated to be contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that the sen-iority list dated 17.5.2000 that has been finalised by the State of Haryana giving seniority to 11 the respondents i.e. respondents No. 2 to 78, is contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court because respondents No. 11 to 78 had not reached the level of Deputy Superintendent when the petitioners were promoted as Superintendent and thereafter as Under Secretary in the State of Haryana. It has been mentioned that the State of Haryana has promoted A.C. Kapil, respondent No. 13 and B.R. Chawla, respondent No. 14 besides Dhani Ram, respondent No. 23, who were otherwise junior to the petitioners. They had not been-promoted as Deputy Superintendent when petitioner No. 1 was promoted as Superintendent on 3.4.1991. Similarly, it is pointed out that Som Parkash Sharma, respondent No. 26 and S.N. Chugh, respondent No. 27, were junior to the petitioners and had not been promoted as Deputy Superintendent by the time petitioner No. 2 had taken over as Superintendent. By way of illustration, the petitioners have stated that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, by the principle of catch up rule, only the persons mentioned as respondents No. 1 to 10 i.e. R.D. Gupta to Soma Devi, would catch up. So far as the seniority of petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it has been demonstrated as under :

Sr. No. Date of promotion as Deputy Superintendent (Class-III) Date of promotion as Superintendent (Class-11) SI. No. in the seniority list.
Sadhu Singh(petitioner No.1) 21.3.1990- 3.4.1991
2.

R.D Gupta 30.4.1990 3.4.1991

3. K.L Shaima

8. 10. 1990 3.4.1991

4. Dharma Pal Kaushik 23.11.1990 3.4.1991

O.P.Sharma 22.2.I99I 29.7.1991

12. Soma Devi Sehgal 22.3.1991 29.7.1991 326"

So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, only persons metioned upto B.R. Chawla would catch up. He demonstrated as under:-
Sr. No. Name Date of promotion as Deputy Superintendent Date of" promotion Superintendent (Class-II) Sl. No. in the seniority list.
13.

B.I. Grover (S/C petitioner No. .2) 23.11.1990 8.7.1991

In other words, as in the present controversy, the Supreme Court clarified and held in accordance with the decision in the case of Ajit Singh-II, seniority list had to be drawn upto the level where the reservation is permitted. After reviewing the said seniority list and re-fixing the same at that level, promotion to the further level of Superintendent Engineer has to be reviewed.

Of course, reversion was not permitted to those who had been promoted before 1.3.1996. That is exactly what has been done in the present controversy. The seniority of the general category candidates has been restored in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh-ll and R.K. Sab-harwal and they are being.promoted from the effective date. As a necessary consequence, unfortunately, some of the reserved candidates have to be reverted.